snood
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 08:47 am
@livinglava,
If you don’t know anything about Biden’s political ideology after he’s been in the politics public eye for over 40 years it’s because you haven’t given a **** about trying to find out.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 09:41 am
Biden’s sponsored quite conservative legislation and people —like Dick Cheney—with pockets of stances that seem less conservative. His career doesn’t show any clear belief system.
snood
 
  5  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 10:20 am
@Lash,
That’s just a lie. Biden has clear and consistent views in support for progressive taxation, strong labor unions, affirmative action, and a dozen other well-documented things.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 10:42 am
I think your comfort bubble is just too cozy for you. This is what progressives are saying about Biden, and your own words in the earlier pages of The Case for Biden show YOU to be the recent convenient liar.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/joe-biden-is-a-phony-plain-and-simple/

Let’s be blunt: As a supposed friend of American workers, Joe Biden is a phony. And now that he’s running for president, Biden’s huge task is to hide his phoniness.

From the outset, with dim prospects from small donors, the Biden campaign is depending on big checks from the rich and corporate elites who greatly appreciate his services rendered. “He must rely heavily, at least at first, upon an old-fashioned network of money bundlers — political insiders, former ambassadors and business executives,” the New York Times reported on
Tuesday.

Biden has a media image that exudes down-to-earth caring and advocacy for regular folks. But his actual record is a very different story.

During the 1970s, in his first Senate term, Biden spouted white backlash rhetoric, used tropes pandering to racism and teamed up with arch segregationists against measures like busing for school integration. He went on to be a fount of racially charged appeals and “predators on our streets” oratory on the Senate floor as he led the successful effort to pass the now-notorious 1994 crime bill.


A gavel in Biden’s hand repeatedly proved to be dangerous. In 1991, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, Biden prevented key witnesses from testifying to corroborate Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual harassment during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. In 2002, as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was the Senate’s most crucial supporter of the Iraq invasion.

Meanwhile, for well over four decades — while corporate media preened his image as “Lunch Bucket Joe” fighting for the middle class — Biden continued his assist for strengthening oligarchy as a powerful champion of legalizing corporate plunder on a mind-boggling scale.

Now, Joe Biden has arrived as a presidential candidate to rescue the Democratic Party from Bernie Sanders.

Urgency is in the media air. Last week, the New York Times told readers that “Stop Sanders” Democrats were “agonizing over his momentum.” The story was front-page news. At the Washington Post, a two-sentence headline appeared just above a nice photo of Biden: “Far-Left Policies Will Drive a 2020 Defeat, Centrist Democrats Fear. So They’re Floating Alternatives.”

Biden is the most reliable alternative for corporate America. He has what Sanders completely lacks—vast experience as an elected official serving the interests of credit-card companies, big banks, insurance firms and other parts of the financial services industry. His alignment with corporate interests has been comprehensive. It was a fulcrum of his entire political career when, in 1993, Sen. Biden voted yes while most Democrats in Congress voted against NAFTA.

In recent months, from his pro-corporate vantage point, Biden has been taking potshots at the progressive populism of Bernie Sanders. At a gathering in Alabama last fall, Biden said: “Guys, the wealthy are as patriotic as the poor. I know Bernie doesn’t like me saying that, but they are.” Later, Biden elaborated on the theme when he told an audience at the Brookings Institution, “I don’t think five hundred billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble. The folks at the top aren’t bad guys.”

Overall, in sharp contrast to the longstanding and continuing negative coverage of Sanders, mainstream media treatment of Biden often borders on reverential. The affection from so many high-profile political journalists toward Biden emerged yet again a few weeks ago during the uproar about his persistent pattern of intrusively touching women and girls. During one cable news show after another, reporters and pundits were at pains to emphasize his essential decency and fine qualities.

But lately, some independent-minded journalists have been exhuming what “Lunch Bucket Joe” is eager to keep buried. For instance:

** Libby Watson, Splinter News: “Joe Biden is telling striking workers he’s their friend while taking money from, and therefore being beholden to, the class of people oppressing them. According to Axios, Biden’s first fundraiser will be with David Cohen, the executive vice president of and principal lobbyist for Comcast. Comcast is one of America’s most hated companies, and for good reason. It represents everything that sucks for the modern consumer-citizen, for whom things like internet or TV access are extremely basic necessities, but who are usually given the option of purchasing it from just one or two companies.” What’s more, Comcast supports such policies as “ending net neutrality and repealing broadband privacy protections. . . . And Joe Biden is going to kick off his presidential campaign by begging for their money.”

** Ryan Cooper, The Week: “As a loyal toady of the large corporations (especially finance, insurance, and credit cards) that put their headquarters in Delaware because its suborned government allows them to evade regulations in other states, Biden voted for repeated rounds of deregulation in multiple areas and helped roll back anti-trust policy — often siding with Republicans in the process. He was a key architect of the infamous 2005 bankruptcy reform bill which made means tests much more strict and near-impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy.”

** Paul Waldman, The American Prospect: “Joe Biden, we are told over and over, is the one who can speak to the disaffected white men angry at the loss of their primacy. He’s the one who doesn’t like abortion, but is willing to let the ladies have them. He’s the one who tells white people to be nice to immigrants, even as he mirrors their xenophobia (‘You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent,’ he said in 2006). He’s the one who validates their racism and sexism while gently trying to assure them that they’re still welcome in the Democratic Party. . . . It’s not yet clear what policy agenda Biden will propose, though it’s likely to be pretty standard Democratic fare that rejects some of the more ambitious goals other candidates have embraced. But Biden represents something more fundamental: a link to the politics and political style of the past.”

** Rebecca Traister, The Cut: “Much of what Democrats blame Republicans for was enabled, quite literally, by Biden: Justices whose confirmation to the Supreme Court he rubber-stamped worked to disembowel affirmative action, collective bargaining rights, reproductive rights, voting rights. . . . In his years in power, Biden and his party (elected thanks to a nonwhite base enfranchised in the 1960s) built the carceral state that disproportionately imprisons and disenfranchises people of color, as part of what Michelle Alexander has described as the New Jim Crow. With his failure to treat seriously claims of sexual harassment made against powerful men on their way to accruing more power (claims rooted in prohibitions that emerged from the feminist and civil-rights movements of the 1970s), Biden created a precedent that surely made it easier for accused harassers, including Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, to nonetheless ascend. Economic chasms and racial wealth gaps have yawned open, in part thanks to Joe Biden’s defenses of credit card companies, his support of that odious welfare-reform bill, his eagerness to support the repeal of Glass-Steagall.”

One of Biden’s illuminating actions came last year in Michigan when he gave a speech—for a fee of $200,000 including “travel allowance”—that praised the local Republican congressman, Fred Upton, just three weeks before the midterm election. From the podium, the former vice president lauded Upton as “one of the finest guys I’ve ever worked with.” For good measure, Biden refused to endorse Upton’s Democratic opponent, who went on to lose by less than 5 percent.

Biden likes to present himself as a protector of the elderly. Campaigning for Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida last autumn, Biden denounced Republicans for aiming to “cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.” Yet five months earlier, speaking to the Brookings Institution on May 8, Biden spoke favorably of means testing that would go a long way toward damaging political support for Social Security and Medicare and smoothing the way for such cuts.

Indications of being a “moderate” and a “centrist” play well with the Washington press corps and corporate media, but amount to a surefire way to undermine enthusiasm and voter turnout from the base of the Democratic Party. The consequences have been catastrophic, and the danger of the party’s deference to corporate power looms ahead. Much touted by the same kind of insular punditry that insisted Hillary Clinton was an ideal candidate to defeat Donald Trump, the ostensible “electability” of Joe Biden has been refuted by careful analysis of data.

As a former Sanders delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and a current coordinator of the relaunched independent Bernie Delegates Network for 2019, I remain convinced that the media meme about choosing between strong progressive commitments and capacity to defeat Trump is a false choice. On the contrary, Biden exemplifies a disastrous approach of jettisoning progressive principles and failing to provide a progressive populist alternative to right-wing populism. That’s the history of 2016. It should not be repeated.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 11:00 am
Biden made some mistakes, most of them decades ago and in subjects he has since changed his stance on.

By the time Obama chose Biden to be his running mate, their views aligned in a way that made them a good team.

All politicians make changes that can be called politically convenient.

Even your perfectly pure Bernie. Just DAYS before the 2016 Iowa caucus, he changed his views from supporting a law that exempted gun manufacturers from litigation, to opposing it.

I could, as you say, “do this all day” too, but I won’t. I can only stomach so much of your disingenuous slime.


0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 02:23 pm
Bernie Sanders recently announced he will take part in a town hall hosted by Fox News in late April. Supporters cheered the decision, especially considering it is very much in line with his history and previous appearances on the network. Some critics took it as an opportunity to call Sanders out for “legitimizing” Fox News, as if this doesn’t ignore the fact Fox News is the most popular network in the United States watched by millions of people each day.
Fox News certainly plays a key role in the calamity of the Trump era and the neofascist turn therein. However, they’re an incredibly powerful and important institution in modern American politics. For millions of Americans, they are the only source of news and political discourse. Bernie Sanders knows this, which is why he’s going on Fox News in the first place, to bring his message to people who might not hear it otherwise. In fact, this is why he’s always brought his message to the people, because they might not hear it otherwise.

In 2016 Bernie Sanders traveled to Liberty University, a conservative
evangelical school well known for its political ties and clout in the Christian Right and pro-life movements, in a concerted effort to spread his message to people who might otherwise never hear it from the man himself. Bernie Sanders said that was his goal during the speech, highlighting the vast difference in worldview between himself and many in the audience. However he also acknowledged that there are many ideas they share and many goals they have in common. The “golden rule” and the idea that people should treat others how they would like to be treated is the foundation of almost all significant religions and Bernie’s own worldview he claimed, as he went on to tie his substantive vision to this broader principle. An argument which at least philosophically and morally speaking, is very powerful.

It’s a powerful argument, but more importantly it was brought to an audience that might never hear it had he not appeared in very hostile territory to deliver it. This goes deeper than just one appearance at Liberty University. Reaching out to those who disagree with him is a fundamental part of Bernie’s theory of politics. Which is exactly why, in a time where rural America is increasingly consolidated under the Republican Party, the Democrats have made little effort to bridge the cultural and political divide keeping them from rural America. Bernie Sanders has done the exact opposite, held mid term rallies in “red states” and has vowed to make sure his campaign is one that focuses on all 50 states.

It’d be easy to ignore red states, but Bernie made a habit of prolific campaigning in 2016 and there’s no reason to think that won’t be the case in 2020. In fact his schedule has been rally heavy as per usual, and while so far he hasn’t ventured too far out of the early primary states like Iowa and California, visits to states like Missouri, Oklahoma, and others were the bread and butter of the Sanders campaign just a few years ago. Even though these are ostensibly “red states” they’re still full of people whose lives are materially impacted by the policy their elected officials push and who can be convinced to support a policy vision that materially benefits them. A policy vision similar to the one offered by Bernie Sanders.

The proof is in the pudding. In “red state” after “red state” progressive policy initiatives succeed via ballot initiative. For example, in both Utah and Idaho, lawmakers have long intentionally sabotaged the Affordable Care Act by bottlenecking exchanges and refusing funds for medicaid expansion. Activists circumvented these lawmakers by petitioning for ballot initiatives, which despite strong opposition from sitting officials, passed with 60.58% and 53.32% in Idaho and Utah respectively. Minimum wage hikes and marijuana legalization have proved policy initiatives where similar success is possible. Because at the end of the day, no matter the locale, these policies are popular and people support them. Which is why Bernie Sanders is so willing to travel to rural America or appear on Fox News, because he knows, even there, the majority of people agree with his vision.

It’s not just these ballot initiatives, polls show ideas such as Medicare for All and taxing the wealthy, are broadly supportive, even among conservatives. For example, according to recent polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation, up to 71% of Americans support Medicare for All and broadly support the idea of “healthcare as a right.” The same poll showed that 67% of Americans support the policy when the goal is framed as “eliminating out of pocket costs and insurance premiums.”

A significant majority of Americans, 70% to be exact, support hiking income tax rates on income over $10 million. Even 54% of Republicans propose such a proposal. Looking at Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax (2% tax on all wealth over $1 billion) and Bernie Sanders estate tax proposal (reinstates the estate tax), popularity sits at 61% and 55% respectively. These are popular proposals for a number of reasons, just to list a few, people instinctively feel they are just, or they see the need to reel in the excesses of the rich in this moment, or they themselves would benefit from the revenue and expanded social spending. Regardless, these policies have support that rivals that of Medicaid expansion or minimum wage hikes, because it helps people in a real and meaningful way.

Barack Obama famously said “there’s no red America, there’s no blue America,” but the Sanders conception of a 50 state focus is far more meaningful. Largely because his conception of politics ensures it is. For Obama and politicians of the technocratic Obama mold, they have vision, and it’s their job as a skilled policymaker/technician to get the policy passed. In Bernie Sanders world, it’s about people, millions of them, coming together and letting their politicians know they have a vision for the world and they will not let up until their leaders enact that vision. Or at the very least make it clear they did all they could do in the service of that vision.

That’s Bernie’s vision of a 50 state vision, and it’s one that everyone can get behind. Personable technocrats can’t break through the partisanship and gross divide in our political culture. People’s movement based politics can and will, that’s the fundamental divide between a politician like Bernie and a politician like Obama. It’s also why Bernie doesn’t shy away from Liberty University, rural America, or Fox News. His entire worldview is based on getting more people involved and Bernie brings his message to the people, wherever they are.

———————
This is the quiet, unshakable power from within.
http://millennialreview.org/2019/04/07/from-rural-america-to-fox-news-bernie-sanders-reaches-out-to-voters-democrats-ignore/
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 05:02 pm
I notice that long cut and paste doesn't respond to the fact that Bernie has flipflopped just like a regular old shallow politician.
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 05:09 pm
@snood,
He who admits nothing has high expectations for others.
Quid pro quo.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 06:05 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

He who admits nothing has high expectations for others.
Quid pro quo.


Ooh, such depth. Brings to mind the timeless saying, “The nostalgic man is wise not to fart into the wind.”
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 07:55 pm
@snood,
Hey, I found that once in a fortune cookie.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2019 07:57 pm
@glitterbag,
😂
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 12:25 am
@Lash,
Quote:
....


Um, okay.

Here's the deal Lash...look at how your views and opinions have changed over the years. Our mindset changes as life gives us lessons.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 02:12 am
@Sturgis,
That is likely the most elegant counter-argument I'll read today.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 02:42 am
I don't know who wrote this but it is brilliant.
Jane Mayer interviews Selina Catherine Meyer
Quote:
Selina Catherine Meyer, the forty-fifth President of the United States, recently declared her candidacy for the 2020 election. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer spoke with Meyer in the former “Veep” ’s first in-depth interview since her historic announcement.

Why are you running for President again?

I am a self-confessed running-for-President addict! I just love it! And when the American people cried out to me again and said, “Selina, we need you,” what could I do but answer?

You were the first female President, widely viewed as a feminist hero. Yet some critics have written that you dislike women. How do you respond to that?

O.K., I’m sorry, what “critic” said that? Was it a woman? I bet it was a woman. Sure sounds like it.

How do you feel about calls to abolish the Electoral College?

The Electoral College screwed me six ways from Sunday in the last election! Abolishing is too good for it, in my opinion—that’s off the record, of course—but let me go one step further: it should be burned, Jane. Burned to the ground with all the electors inside and the emergency exits padlocked, like in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. That’s also off the record, by the way.

I’m sorry, but the ground rules were established before this interview began. Everything is on the record.

You know something? I’m going to have my attorney look over the paperwork. But we did agree that this is a cover story, right? That’s really the only reason I’m doing this.

What have you learned from spending time with the citizens of Iowa recently?

People in this country are hurting! And they’re not shy about telling you about it, that’s for sure. Sometimes they want to tell you about their problems for hours and hours and hours. A feeling I’m encountering a lot during my “feelings tour” is the feeling of self-pity. One of the many wonderful things about the American people is that they are so self-reliant, which means they are capable of pitying themselves without expecting others—and especially the government—to do it for them.

Ma’am, why campaign to run the government if you think people are better off without it?

I’m speaking strictly in regard to self-pity here, Jane. My point is that we don’t need to launch a National Self-Pity Initiative or appoint a Secretary of Self-Pity or create a Department of Self-Pity, because, No. 1, we already have the Treasury Department [laughs], and, secondly, because Americans, God bless them, are perfectly capable of pitying themselves just fine on their own. [Laughs] Beyond that, I think I’ve been very clear that I am not in favor of Big Government, but I’m also not a fan of Small Government. I support Medium-Sized Government and have campaigned on that ever since my earliest days in public life.

You have long-standing ties to a political backer who is a private-prison mogul whom you officially pardoned. Is there too much money in American politics?

I think I’ve been very clear on this point: there is nowhere near enough money in politics. Which is why only second-, and, really, mostly third-, or, if we’re being honest, fourth-rate people become politicians, present company excepted. I hope I’m not being too boastful, but I’ve been President, O.K.? And I know the job is worth at least what some disgraced TV executive might receive for getting orally pleasured, shall we say, in his office, which was more than a hundred million dollars, I heard. I promise you, if we started paying the President a hundred million dollars, even without the blow jobs, you’d start seeing some really interesting, high-quality people running. That blow-job comment is off the record, O.K.?

School shootings have become a scourge in America. How will you deal with the issue?

I think we should start with education. These are “school” shootings, after all. But it’s a very serious problem. Do you have any ideas? I think the media should really start pulling its own weight in this country.

The obesity problem has been a personal passion of yours. What do you propose to do about it?

I don’t think fat-shaming is the answer. I know because my daughter Catherine has struggled with weight issues for her entire life. She was a very fat baby and an exceptionally chunky toddler. Everyone noticed it. Inevitably, she grew into a chubby teen, despite my diligent efforts to remind her that she was becoming unattractively overweight. As a perfect example of the sort of poor choices she has made throughout her life, she decided, despite her muffin top, to become some kind of dance major in college. At first, I thought it might actually help, because prancing around in front of other people with your gut hanging out, while wearing a leotard, is a very shameful thing, one would think. But, evidently, not for my daughter.

Your ancestors, you say in your memoir, conducted a thriving “secondary market” for slaves. What is your stance on reparations?

I am in favor! Strongly in favor. I think each citizen who can prove that he or she is descended from a slave or slaves should get a two-thousand-and-two-hundred-dollar tax credit. I challenge my fellow-candidates to make the same commitment.

What is your position on nepotism in politics?

I think the country has been very well served by it over the centuries. Think of Bobby Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt. And not just in politics, by the way. How about show business? Frank Sinatra, Jr., Drew Barrymore, Lou Gossett, Jr.—the list goes on. Or sports. Imagine if Roger Federer had kids. I think we’d all enjoy seeing them play sports.

Have you ever used a private e-mail server for official business?

As far as I’m concerned, once you have entered public life of your own volition, there is no such thing as “private” anything, O.K.? My life is an open book, and I would happily share all of my e-mails with the public if I used e-mail, which I don’t. That’s not to say that I judge people who use e-mail—I’m sure it’s great—but I prefer to leave phone messages, which do a better job, I feel, of communicating emotion and nuance.

Do you tweet?

I think so.

There are allegations that you have colluded with foreign countries, during your campaign. What is your response to these charges?

I am immensely proud of my foreign-policy record! But I believe that America does not have a monopoly on good ideas. A good idea can come from anywhere: Scandinavia, Asia—anywhere. But, you know something? I probably shouldn’t have said that America doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas. That kind of thing can get you in a lot of hot water these days. [Laughs] Let me rephrase that: America does have a monopoly on good ideas. Always had, always will. I am just in love with this country, Jane, and the wealth of great ideas that seem to almost spring up out of the ground is just one of many reasons.

Did you write your memoir, “A Woman First: First Woman,” yourself? Rumors have circulated suggesting you had one or more ghost writers.

I haven’t made it through the most recent edit of my autobiography quite yet, but what I have read so far is just terrific. Really, really good. If people are disappointed, I suspect that it may be because they don’t read a lot, or maybe because they don’t know how to read. Adult illiteracy is a huge problem in this country and is a cause I’m really passionate about. As you may know, my charity, the Meyer Fund, has pledged to eradicate adult illiteracy in our lifetime—not that I expect much in the way of thanks from book publishers! In my experience, those people are jackals.

Let me just say something more here. I have always been a big reader. I love to read, and I always have three or four books on my nightstand. Right now, in addition to my own book, I have the new Anne Tyler, which I started but which is a bit dense. And also “Hillbilly Elegy,” which I just know I’m going to read—and love—right after everyone else has finished it! Also, that book by Ta-Nehisi Coates that everyone is talking about. And I just got a new one, “Educated,” by Tara Westover. I’m a big believer in education. It really works! Also the Bible.

What is your position on the emoluments clause?

Pass.

There are no “passes” in campaigns. Do you think it’s proper for a President to profit from the office?

There are lots of different types of “profit,” you know. If you’re talking about the “profit” that one gets from having—and, most importantly, learning from—incredible, unique experiences, then, yes, absolutely. I think it would be a terrible disservice to the entire nation if the President did not “profit” in this way from his—or her!—office.

Have Presidential campaigns become too negative?

Absolutely, Jane! Presidential campaigns have definitely become too negative! Absolutely! I much prefer positive campaigns. If Selina Meyer is one thing, she’s all about the positive.

Do female candidates face a double standard?

There is a clear double standard for male and female politicians. As a woman, I would never start a sentence with “as a woman” because, if I were a man, I would never start a sentence with “as a man”—though, if I did, I bet more people would sit up straight and start listening! Politics is still a minefield for women—and not the good kind! Look, when a woman screams and pours hot tea on a subordinate, somehow she’s “shrill” or “emotional” or “unstable,” but, when a man does the exact same thing, he’s called “forceful” and “no-nonsense,” sometimes even “macho” or “manly” or “irresistible” or “dynamic” or “exacting” or “chivalrous.” Or “devil-may-care.” You see it over and over.

You are a grandmother. How will you manage the work-life balance if you are elected?

I’m really disappointed that you have chosen to descend to gotcha journalism. I expected better from The New Yorker. I really did. Let me tell you something: I think “grandmother” is just a state of mind. Oftentimes, people will see me with my daughter and her infant son and think she is the grandma, and not just because of these pioneer-lady dresses she inexplicably chooses to wear.

You were a débutante. Can you relate to less privileged citizens? And what will you do about economic inequality?

Listen, I know that débutante balls are not exactly “politically correct” these days. But let me tell you something about Selina Meyer: I have never been politically correct, O.K.? When I referred to Italians as “good for nothing more than grinding an organ for a monkey to dance to, and—oh, by the way, did you notice? The monkey is doing all the work!,” the press howled. But, as time passed, I was ultimately proven right. It’s actually quite remarkable what you can train a monkey to do.

Anyway, I’m so glad you asked me this, because I think that, far from being an artifact of the past, débutante balls are the wave of the future. And I really don’t see why they have to strictly be an activity for the rich and the grasping bourgeoisie. No, I think that coming out at a débutante ball should be every young American woman’s right, like getting a primary-school education or having reliable air-traffic control. And we need to find new ways to pay for these new balls, possibly through corporate sponsorships and public-private partnerships. I see incredible opportunities for innovation in this particular sector.

Do you have a position on climate change?

In this day and age, I think every candidate needs to have a position on climate change. And not just for our own benefit—for our children and our children’s children, who will, trust me, have lots of other problems to deal with, so it would be nice if they had one less. But, look, I have a beach house. The beach is disappearing. Am I worried? Yes. Am I trying to sell it? Yes. Is that climate change? Who knows? But I am going to say yes.

Sorry, but I have to go now. This has been such fun! You are one tough questioner, little lady! I like that, by the way. Although, as I understand it, this magazine is printed on paper, which comes from forests. The New Yorker really could do a bit more to stop climate change.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 02:49 am
@blatham,
Hahahahaaa!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 02:58 am
This is not an unsane fear. Ed Kilgore has voiced the same.
Quote:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not believe President Trump can be removed through impeachment — the only way to do it, she said this week, is to defeat him in 2020 by a margin so “big” he cannot challenge the legitimacy of a Democratic victory.

That is something she worries about.

“We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that,” Ms. Pelosi said during an interview at the Capitol on Wednesday as she discussed her concern that Mr. Trump would not give up power voluntarily if he lost re-election by a slim margin next year.
https://nyti.ms/2H18EuM
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 03:18 am
Quote:
Biden Thinks Trump Is the Problem, Not All Republicans. Other Democrats Disagree.

...Democrats, like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, see the president as a symptom of something deeper, both in a Republican Party overtaken by Trumpism and a nation cleaved by partisanship. Simply ousting Mr. Trump, they tell voters, is not enough.
https://nyti.ms/2H0WiTn

I don't know if Biden is forwarding this approach as an electoral matter believing this is the best way to capture centrist votes or if he actually thinks this way. If he does think this way, he's deluded. So that's the easy part of this issue.

The tougher problem is how to go about demonstrating to American citizens what is now the real nature of the GOP and conservatism.

Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 03:45 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5uKGkqW0AEl2Pj?format=jpg&name=medium
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 07:52 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

The tougher problem is how to go about demonstrating to American citizens what is now the real nature of the GOP and conservatism.


I agree, that indeed is likely to be a difficult challenge. Just over two years of Republican majority rule have turned a slower-than-usual post recession recovery into a longer-than-usual boom with rising business investment, increasing employment, and strong GDP growth. One of several beneficial consequences is the lowest unemployment rate we have seen since 1970, with particularly strong gains among so called minority populations. Wages are rising and (so far) with little inflation.

Meanwhile leading Democrats, in the grip of their increasing anger and resentments, are digging an ever deeper hole for themselves in efforts to discredit their political enemies. They have also in the process essentially shut down the House of Representatives and any constructive action to deal with issues currently facing our country.

In company with all this their prescriptions for needed new political policies are rapidly becoming more radical and divorced from current realities and (in my view) majority public values and interests.

My impression is that many Democrats (and several posters here) are battling ghosts of their own imagining. This is not an unusual element of human behavior, however it usually yields little benefit for those who indulge in it excessively,
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 08:48 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Just over two years of Republican majority rule have turned a slower-than-usual post recession recovery into a longer-than-usual boom with rising business investment, increasing employment, and strong GDP growth.

Sure, by cutting taxes and getting rid of regulations. Great for a short term boost, long enough to carry you to victory in the next election cycle. But at what cost? Soaring deficits? Increased pollution? Crumbling infrastructure? More workplace injuries? These costs aren't neatly summed up in a monthly report as jobs and GPD growth are but will take their toll over time. Blithely conducting economic policies to achieve momentarily good numbers doesn't seem like good government to me. The costs will need to be paid eventually.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 09:08:05